• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should society dissuade people from reproducing children they can't raise? How?

Should society dissuade incompetent people from producing children?

  • Sort of, implement two-child policy

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
I think financial incentives for sterilisation would still upset those whose focus is on taxpayer dollars being wasted ....
...even though it would probably save them money in the long run.

In the real world, I mean, not their fantasy world where they don't have to pay for anything.
 
...even though it would probably save them money in the long run.

In the real world, I mean, not their fantasy world where they don't have to pay for anything.

Well, as someone who prefers small government, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that society should not be paying a woman to have or not to have children - that should be a decision she makes wisely, with planning, and an understanding of what motherhood/parenthood involves and requires of her. That said, it's clear there are an abundance of irresponsible people in western society so some government involvement to protect children is a necessary evil.
 
Well, as someone who prefers small government, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that society should not be paying a woman to have or not to have children - that should be a decision she makes wisely, with planning, and an understanding of what motherhood/parenthood involves and requires of her. That said, it's clear there are an abundance of irresponsible people in western society so some government involvement to protect children is a necessary evil.

There's a difference between protecting children and punishing the irresponsible. We ought to do both.
 
The moral obligation to care for your child, and not have children you cannot care for, should be something that is encouraged and taught at home by parents. We need to teach good morals to our children, and not foist certain moral through legal mode whenever possible. This way a child grows up and learns to make the correct decisions to begin with. All things should really be done this way, so that the essence of "self-government" is actually a society where each person governs himself/herself properly without burdening society.
 
There's a difference between protecting children and punishing the irresponsible. We ought to do both.

Considering the number of irresponsible is huge, just how would you "effectively" punish them?
 
Considering the number of irresponsible is huge, just how would you "effectively" punish them?

Usually financially. Those people on the public dole get their money cut when they act like idiots.
 
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.

Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.

The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.

Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?

I picked other. If they get tax payer aid and have two kids then that is all they get tax payer aid for regardless of how many additional kids they have. If fathers can't take care of their kids then they get fined for failing to pay child support,if they can't pay fines then they get put in jail and then on some work program to help reimburse the tax payers who have to take care of his kids.
 
Actions have consequences. If you breed without being able to care for the resulting child, why should anyone be surprised when there are serious negative consequences for their lack of responsibility?

This isn't Casino. You don't have the right to violate people's bodies, because they have children.
 
I posted a mandatory sterilization thread, and much to my surprise, I was booed down. Apparently reproductive rights are a touchy subject.
 
I love libertarians that are the ones who most favor government funded or sanctioned sterilization. More proof to me that the libertarian "movement" is more about a psychopathic concern for the self rather than freedom and liberty, in and of themselves.
 
This isn't Casino. You don't have the right to violate people's bodies, because they have children.

Who is violating anyone's body? Where has that even been suggested? I'm saying that all actions that you take have consequences and some of those consequences may be negative. You have a choice what actions you take, knowing the potential consequences that may arise.
 
For one thing, no right is sacrosanct (with the possible exception of this one). We take away people's lives, liberties and property if it is warranted, always respecting due process and going through a court of law, and with the idea that individual rights should be maximized at all times and restricted or suspended only when most necessary.

For another thing, this particular individual right creates another individual that inherently has rights. As a function of respecting individual rights, we usually recognize that one person's exercise of his/her rights cannot trample another person's rights. So what I think we are doing is overvaluing one right (to reproduce) even to the blatant detriment of the new individual's rights, in some cases.

how do you determine who should/shouldn't have children?

Forced Sterilization in the United States - History of Forced Sterilization in the United States

or who should be allowed to raise children?

"A Battle for the Children: American Indian Child Removal in Arizona in" by Margaret D. Jacobs

Baby Scoop Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
how do you determine who should/shouldn't have children?

or who should be allowed to raise children?

How do our courts currently decide whose parental rights to terminate?

Surely you could think of some fairly no-brainer examples of people who should not be getting pregnant and having/raising children. Polysubstance addicts, for example?

Truthfully the answer to your question is "I don't know," which was why I introduced a few ideas in the poll, and welcomed more/other ideas.
 
I think we should make it simple and non permanent, people can and do improve their situations. I would make birth control a mandatory requirement to receive government assistance. If you cannot afford to support yourself and existing family you sure do not need to be adding to it.
 
I think we should make it simple and non permanent, people can and do improve their situations. I would make birth control a mandatory requirement to receive government assistance. If you cannot afford to support yourself and existing family you sure do not need to be adding to it.
How so? By implant, which would have a better chance of effective follow-thru, or by some other method that could be circumvented (i.e.: pills, etc.)?
 
DaveFagan, Fiddytree, Gathomas88, Henrin, Van Basten

WTH is wrong with y'all??

Nothing at all is wrong with me for picking no. I'm just doing what what I always do when people ask questions like this. People do not need permission from the state to reproduce nor does the state have any say on who reproduces when. The choice was pretty easy for me to make, imho.
 
I posted a mandatory sterilization thread, and much to my surprise, I was booed down. Apparently reproductive rights are a touchy subject.

Surprise? You would think the abortion debate would clue you in to that much.
 
How so? By implant, which would have a better chance of effective follow-thru, or by some other method that could be circumvented (i.e.: pills, etc.)?


By whatever means the physician and recipient feel is best. Many woman use Depo-Provera, a single injection that last for 3 months but this may not be suitable for all women. In those cases other forms may be needed.
 
Yes society should. How? By stop giving poor people more perks for each new one they pop out be it stepped up EIC or Food Stamps or TANF. Wombs shouldn't be allowed to be ATM machines.
 
DaveFagan, Fiddytree, Gathomas88, Henrin, Van Basten

WTH is wrong with y'all??

The options were heavily tilted in the direction of forced or incentivized sterilization practices. I do not want us to go down that dark road of human rights violations again, just because some folks think they are owed control over someone's body because tax payers subsidize programs. It violates human rights and almost entirely targets the poor and the disabled. These are not "consequences" of childbirth. They are a conscious over-extension of power seeking to fundamentally alter the functions of the human body. If it became uncomfortable for such practices to continue 20 years after the holocaust, it should still frighten us.
 
Last edited:
The options were heavily tilted in the direction of forced or incentivized sterilization practices. I do not want us to go down that dark road of human rights violations again,

We are on a dark road of human rights violations, currently, it's just that the particular humans whose rights are violated are newborns whose parents abuse drugs, abuse them, and can't afford to provide any of what they need. Children are inherently the most rightfully deserving of their needs being met, and we stand by idly and watch as addict mothers and fathers abuse their fetuses with drugs and then need life-long taxpayer support to provide for that dysfunctional family.

Human rights are being neglected when it comes to the sanctity of reproduction vs. the rights of children. We have such an irrational visceral reaction to reproduction control that we allow babies to be permanently damaged and then require strangers to pay for the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.

Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.

The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.

Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?

If someone has been found to be severely abusive to children in the past or have committed infanticide or murdered their children intentionally - then I fully support forced sterilization OR taking away any and all children they have immediately and disallowing guardianship, adoption (etc) in the future and barring them from working with children/near children.

No sense in enabling their heinous behavior just because nature has its way.
 
Try to suspend auto-outrage before answering and responding.

Every state has an administrative agency charged with temporarily suspending, and/or petitioning for extinguishment of, parental rights if those parents neglect their children's basic needs.

The act of producing a child generates a legal obligation to provide for its basic needs. Failure to do so can result in the extinguishment of parental rights. Therefore, a person who is fertile but otherwise has demonstrable inability to provide basic minimum care to the child is capable creating a financial and legal liability that it can transfer onto others without their consent.

Why do taxpayers have to stand by and watch as people produce liabilities that they can shovel off onto others? How is this justifiable, and what should be done about it?

We don't need the state to enforce birth control and sterilization. We can start by returning to the value of family, and using extremely strong peer pressure against loose sexual conduct that results in unwanted pregnancies. This is a societal issue, and one only society can fix, not government. It's starts with the home, and the family. It starts with returning to actual values, and morals. That's what we're missing, and that's what we need to get back.
 
We don't need the state to enforce birth control and sterilization. We can start by returning to the value of family, and using extremely strong peer pressure against loose sexual conduct that results in unwanted pregnancies. This is a societal issue, and one only society can fix, not government. It's starts with the home, and the family. It starts with returning to actual values, and morals. That's what we're missing, and that's what we need to get back.

Your response echoes several others that have been provided thus far, which essentially says fix families rather than restrict them. This is a politically correct answer, not to say it's a bad one per se, because I do agree with it, and I have a tendency to very much agree with the others who have given this answer, but the question then becomes "how?" How do we suddenly return to this? What do we actually DO to change our culture?

Specifically, for example, what would your plan do about the 22-year old train-wreck polysubstance addict who is having unprotected sex as often as possible, with as many men (who are also addicts) as possible?

Some babies are being abused and permanently neurologically damaged from the moment of conception onward. Why are all human rights subject to restriction in certain cases, except this one, which is sacrosanct?
 
Your response echoes several others that have been provided thus far, which essentially says fix families rather than restrict them. This is a politically correct answer, not to say it's a bad one per se, because I do agree with it, and I have a tendency to very much agree with the others who have given this answer, but the question then becomes "how?" How do we suddenly return to this? What do we actually DO to change our culture?

Specifically, for example, what would your plan do about the 22-year old train-wreck polysubstance addict who is having unprotected sex as often as possible, with as many men (who are also addicts) as possible?

Some babies are being abused and permanently neurologically damaged from the moment of conception onward. Why are all human rights subject to restriction in certain cases, except this one, which is sacrosanct?

I don't have an answer that doesn't involve the parents manning up and beating the **** out of their druggie son, or the abusive mother, which probably isn't the best course of action. I'm not exactly great parent material myself, which is why I chose a long time ago not to have children.

However, forcing abortions and sterilizations is inherently wrong on every level. What's the criteria for sterilization? How do they determine who goes under the knife to have their organs forcibly removed from their bodies? What if they make a mistake and permanently damage an innocent person? What if all they need is just a little growing up, and given the chance, would turn out to be wonderful parents? You can't give someone back their reproductive abilities, and we may as well just be putting them up against a wall to shoot them.
 
Back
Top Bottom